Count me in!Originally Posted by Marko
That's in the Santa Susana Mountains, not Santa Monica Mountains, BTW.
Perhaps we could go for a group shoot over there one of the coming weekends?
All I need to do is bring my portfolio to convince any "Smokey the Bear" that I'm not a pro.
POTENTIAL????? Do they employ psychics?????
As a society we have moved from the old assumption of my childhood that unless something is explicitly forbidden, then it is permitted into the position that unless something is explicitly permitted then it is forbidden.
I don't know what I'm supposed to do. I'm just like most of you. Passionate about my hobby, so I have better cameras and lenses than the average person but I am not looking to make a profit. I just make prints for myself or friends. I was considering finding out how much a permit is but they also want additional fees like monitoring, certificate of insurance. Imagine every time I have a day off and feel like taking a picture I need to pay $50 or $100 or something for it? This can almost kill my hobby.
What to do? Am I being whiny?
If there is no commercial intent, then I don't see how the answer you received requires a permit. You could ask for clarification of what comprises "commercial use or potential commercial use". It is appropriate to politely ask them to be specific, and to provide references in state law, as to the definition on which the rule hinges. Rudeness will undermine your cause, and so will complaining. My response to the message you quoted would be something like: "Thank you for your response. I am confused as to the meaning of 'commercial use or potential commercial use'. Can you provide a specific definition of commercial use that I can use to guide my actions? And can you point me to the specific paragraphs in the state code that govern this definition and the permitting process? Thank you very much for your continued assistance."
Rick "who has been approached only one by an NPS ranger, who had no issue when our non-commercial purpose was explained" Denney
I followed your advice and wrote word by word what you said. I would like to know what the reply will be. Thanks Rick. I think I should chill out and see what happens. Thanks again.
I don't think this is the case, though some may be trying to make it so.
Example: I took my nieces to the National Gallery of Art last week. They asked if it was okay to take pictures. The response was "Always, unless it is specifically prohibited". There is not even a restriction on the use of flash. I made photos of a number of works, ranging from Rembrandt to Jasper Johns while we were there. I lifted my camera, noticed a guard, decided the picture wasn't that useful, and then lowered it, leaving the guard the impression I was afraid he would intervene. He politely told me that it was fine to use the camera. But in the exhibition of Arcimboldo's works, photography was restricted, and there was a plainly worded sign to that effect at the entrance to that exhibit. Likewise the wonderful display of 19th-century British photography, where they also had the lights turned down as expected. But stuff in their permanent collection was no problem. I would expect the same commercial-use permitting requirement there as in other federal public places.
Rick "who did not, of course, have a tripod and large-format camera" Denney
Just to be clear to readers not in the area, this is a California Park under management by the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy. It's an odd duck, not your regular state park. Their mission seems to be to buy up land and then turn it over (i.e. sell it) to the regular state and national parks services.
My point being that you shouldn't extrapolate from an experience there to any other park or government land.
--Darin
Re: Updated: Photo Permits on US and California public lands
You sir are absolutely right. After emailing and researching I got up to talking with Lee Dickinson who is the Special Park Uses Program Manager, Visitor and Resource Protection for the National Park Service. He told me the following:
"I am sorry you had such an unpleasant experience while you were shooting in
Antonovich Regional Park. The Santa Monica Mountains are a magnificent
resource that are managed by various land management organizations,
including Federal, State, local and private. While the policy and guidance
you quoted in you message are correct for areas managed by the National
Park Service, the Antonovich Park is not one of our sites, and our policies
do not apply.
Should you have questions about National Park Service managed sites within
the Santa Monica Mountain please feel free to contact the park at
805-370-2301. And I'll be glad to answer any questions concerning still
photography that you might have."
In essence, you are right this is a fluke regional park that have this stern policy but I can feel free to photograph at any NPS sites and everything is fine. I feel much better although it is a shame this regional park is so strict, nice scenery there to photograph.
ER
Well, I wouldn't call it a fluke, it is pretty clear that they maintain a great many resources for the State. And their policy, as stated in that email, is not really all that different from most other public places here.
The only potential problem, as I see it, is the interpretation of the terms "commercial use" and "potential commercial use" by the enforcement staff.
If the push really comes to shove, you do not need to prove that you are not breaking the rules, they need to prove that you are. If it does come to issuing a citation, I can imagine that it could be pretty successfully challenged in court. Much more successfully than a traffic citation, for example.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks